|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1024 days) Posts: 1800 From: Prague, Czech Republic Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Intermediate forms now evidence against evolution, says creationist | |||||||||||||||||||||||
caffeine Member (Idle past 1024 days) Posts: 1800 From: Prague, Czech Republic Joined: |
I was aimlessly avoiding work in the depths of the internet today when I started reading about long-beaked echidnas; which a chap named Muse Opiang has been studying for the last four years. Whilst reading various press reports about what he'd uncovered (including the fact that they're one of the rare mammals in which females tend to be bigger than males), I stumbled across this account, written by the science reporter for the Institue for Creation Research, under the title 'Egg-laying echidna could not have evolved'.
I was shocked enough by the bizarreness of this article that I felt I had to share it with someone. Aside from the cynicism of the writer in falsely pretending Opiang's research supports his nonsense, how does someone come to the conclusion that the existence of an animal which shares mammalian and reptillian features is damning evidence against evolution with common descent? What's going on in this man's head? Anyone with access to ASM Journals who's interested to read about what Opiang really learnt about echidna ecology can do so here. Edited by caffeine, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 8.7 |
Can't help but think this deserves more to be in Proposed New Topics than Links and Information.
Aside from the cynicism of the writer in falsely pretending Opiang's research supports his nonsense, how does someone come to the conclusion that the existence of an animal which shares mammalian and reptillian features is damning evidence against evolution with common descent? What's going on in this man's head? What's going on in this man's head? A desperate attempt to prop up mythology against the damning evidence of reality. Creationists aren't interested in examining evidence to establish the truth; they interested in protecting the bible against any suggestion of falsity. Thus we get this parade of absurd Creationist arguments that show no sign of ever even attempting to understand.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi caffeine,
Nice article
Anyone with access to ASM Journals who's interested to read about what Opiang really learnt about echidna ecology can do so here. Your link worked for me.
... how does someone come to the conclusion that the existence of an animal which shares mammalian and reptillian features is damning evidence against evolution with common descent? It's easy, you start with incredulity - how can anyone explain how {X} came to be? Thus you establish that it poses problems for a natural explanation, and then say that it's easy for a god-who-can-make-anything to create. Doesn't matter what {X} is. Enjoy. by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
caffeine Member (Idle past 1024 days) Posts: 1800 From: Prague, Czech Republic Joined: |
Can't help but think this deserves more to be in Proposed New Topics than Links and Information. Sorry if this is the wrong place - I'm still a bit unused to these forums. I didn't think there was too much to discuss and debate; more just something to stare at in amazement.
What's going on in this man's head? A desperate attempt to prop up mythology against the damning evidence of reality. Creationists aren't interested in examining evidence to establish the truth; they interested in protecting the bible against any suggestion of falsity. Thus we get this parade of absurd Creationist arguments that show no sign of ever even attempting to understand. And the process you and RAZD describe thus leads to both the lack of taxon intermediate between the major divisions of life and the existence of taxon intermediate between the majot divisions of life being presented as if they prove the same point. Incredible mental gymnastics.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 8.7 |
And the process you and RAZD describe thus leads to both the lack of taxon intermediate between the major divisions of life and the existence of taxon intermediate between the majot divisions of life being presented as if they prove the same point. Incredible mental gymnastics. I don't think it's incredible mental gymnastics but rather the complete opposite: it's ill thought out dim witted nonsense at its best. The creos aren't thinking*, and they aren't trying to create a coherent alternative, they're just swinging away wildly in the hope something sticks - most of the time they're not trying to convince anyone with any understanding either. * - Admittedly, there are probably a few to whom this generalisation does not apply, but only a few.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3291 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
OMG, I've never thought of this before! Thank you for the link! I now know with absolute certainty that evolution is a disproven theory.
According to the theory of evolution, lots of "micro"evolution adds up to "macro"evolution. In other words, it's either mammal or reptilian. Proto-mammals can't exist.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Teapots&unicorns Member (Idle past 4888 days) Posts: 178 Joined: |
I hope you're joking Taz.
As per this article, this claim is just ridiculous. The creationists demand a transitional fossil, then claim it could not be one. See their logic? I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours. - Stephen Roberts I'm a polyatheist - there are many gods I don't believe in- Dan Foutes "In the beginning, the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has widely been considered as a bad move."- Douglas Adams
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3291 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
Teapots writes:
What are you talking about? I am absolutely 100% not joking. For years I've been told that I'm not going to find a creature that's half dog and half monkey to link the two together because that's not how evolution works. Evolution is suppose to be so gradual that it's either all dog or all monkey. Now, you're telling me that something that's half monkey and half dog is evidence of evolution? I hope you're joking Taz. This is why most scientists don't believe in evolution and now an increasing number of scientists are turning toward the bible for truth. People Eating Tasty Animals
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Teapots&unicorns Member (Idle past 4888 days) Posts: 178 Joined: |
For years I've been told that I'm not going to find a creature that's half dog and half monkey to link the two together because that's not how evolution works. Evolution is suppose to be so gradual that it's either all dog or all monkey. Now, you're telling me that something that's half monkey and half dog is evidence of evolution? I said that I hoped you were joking because this is the evidence for evolution. I would like to point out that this animal is not half monkey and half dog as you mistakenly pointed out; it shares both mammilian and reptilic characteristics. Please keep that in mind. You should also know that your claim ...so gradual that it's either all dog or all monkey is completely false. This would be totally irrelevant evidence, as well as misguided. Gradual (note word choice) results in many transitional forms such as (bluntly- not canon/fact) 0.25 fish/0.75 mammal; 0.5 fish/0.5 mammal; 0.75 fish/0.25 mammal and so on. The whole point is that evolution works slowly, something that you don't seem to be getting.
This is why most scientists don't believe in evolution and now an increasing number of scientists are turning toward the bible for truth. Contrary to your beliefs, 95% of all scientists hold evolution to be true.
Beliefs of the U.S. public about evolution and creation I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours. - Stephen Roberts I'm a polyatheist - there are many gods I don't believe in- Dan Foutes "In the beginning, the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has widely been considered as a bad move."- Douglas Adams
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Son Member (Idle past 3830 days) Posts: 346 From: France,Paris Joined: |
Taz is being sarcastic, you would know if you looked at his other posts.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Teapots&unicorns Member (Idle past 4888 days) Posts: 178 Joined: |
Sorry, I haven't been here long, so I assumed he was being sincere. My mistake.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Son Member (Idle past 3830 days) Posts: 346 From: France,Paris Joined: |
Don't worry, when creationnists make claims, I always feel like they are being sarcastic.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5930 Joined: Member Rating: 5.8 |
This claim is very similar to another by Duane Gish that I used to think was a one-of-a-kind, but then years later I recently saw it used again by somebody else, plus there's this "new" one as well.
In a four-page Impact article on Archaeopteryx, Gish spent three pages regurgitating all their standard claims meant to show conclusively that Archaeopteryx is "100% bird and not one bit reptile." But then at the end of the article he then brought up the claims of two anti-evolutionists that one of Archaeopteryx fossils was a fake, that somebody had added feather impressions to a reptile fossil. Thus Gish triumphantly proclaimed that Archaeopteryx is either "100% bird and not one bit reptile" or it's "100% reptile and not one bit bird", it is not intermediate between reptiles and birds. No, it's not mental gymnastics, nor is it really a case that they're not thinking. I think it's that they are trapped in a mental prison of their own making, one whose bars are built of their grossly wrong preconceptions; ironically, rather than seeking to escape their prison, they have to exert all their energy towards holding their prison's bars together. It's not that they're not thinking, but rather that they must constantly guard against the kinds of thinking that would reveal their folly to themselves. I had a friend at church (UU) who had previously been an extreme fundamentalist. For years, he had to turn a blind eye to everyday observations that contradicted his beliefs, he had to constantly practice self-deception (this is how he himself described it to me). Finally one day, that constantly self-deception had exhausted him, so he took a hard critical look at his beliefs (basically applying the Matt 7:20 test), found them to be wrong, and became an atheist and thorough humanist and a much more spiritual person. And, no, yet again creationists are not in the least bit trying to create a coherent alternative. Their goal is to discredit science in any way that they can, and that is what they are doing. What is Archaeopteryx exactly? They don't care, just so long as they can claim that it's not intermediate. Echidnas? Same thing. Creationists are arriving at absurdly false conclusions directly because of their beliefs. Which thus fails the Matt 7:20 test yet again.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2106 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
At what point does the willful self-deception (lying to oneself) become lying to others?
Creationists go to great lengths to make up "what if" stories to explain away the contradictions between their religious beliefs and scientific findings. They ignore data, misrepresent data, manufacture false data, and violate every tenet of the scientific method and logic, all in order to claim that their religious beliefs are supported by science. Creation "science" is the golden standard for this deliberate misrepresentation, with ID coming in a close second. The Discovery Institute, aptly called the "Dishonesty Institute" is the standard-bearer for ID and, though they would deny it, for creation "science." We see this misrepresentation very often with the "intermediate" question, the subject of this thread, but the purported "science" supporting the biblical global flood about 4,350 years ago has to be the single most outlandish example of creation "science" and the "what if" approach to the scientific method. At what point does this willful self-deception become out-and-out lying? Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3291 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
Crackpots&unicorns writes:
Oh, and half mammal and half reptile is better how?
I said that I hoped you were joking because this is the evidence for evolution. I would like to point out that this animal is not half monkey and half dog as you mistakenly pointed out; it shares both mammilian and reptilic characteristics. Please keep that in mind. is completely false. This would be totally irrelevant evidence, as well as misguided. Gradual (note word choice) results in many transitional forms such as (bluntly- not canon/fact) 0.25 fish/0.75 mammal; 0.5 fish/0.5 mammal; 0.75 fish/0.25 mammal and so on. The whole point is that evolution works slowly, something that you don't seem to be getting.
So, somewhere in there I should be able to find .5fish/.5 mammal, right? And yet we don't have a single example of a creature with any kind of combination between fish and mammal. Evolution is a myth!
Contrary to your beliefs, 95% of all scientists hold evolution to be true.
Typical lies and propaganda by atheists and satanists! Evolution is a theory in crisis. Creation is truth.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024